The twentieth century was one with battles that involved mass, even if in the case of the Cold War it is mainly to be seen from the alt-history perspective as massed ranks of WP Soviets advance on NATO.

The twenty-first century seems more to be low-level skirmish like border-reivers coming to colonize.
(1) Is that the right sentiment to draw? If not what are the big battles akin to Kursk that might be played out?
(2) If it is right, then in this century will it be mainly low-level insurgency type actions and in which case what rules using and what size figures will be the way of the wargaming future for the 'now'?

If you are such a great writer make me want to logon and respond! [Adapted]

Not entirely sure your thoughts or ideas are clearly stated? But perhaps its the art of the incomplete comment to raise thinking or comment?

Perhaps the post WW2 conflicts could often be seen as war by proxy by new "Empires" like Red Russia and USA, and later still their satellites like Red China, East Germany, Cuba and Israel; alongside independence movements from those trying to rid themselves of old Empires (Portugal, France, UK) and new Empires (CIA / USA, KGB / Soviet Russia and its post Communist nationalist Empire in Balkans, Eastern Europe / Caucasus and Middle East) ??

Within newly independent countries there are and have been civil war battlegrounds backed by outside factions or global business empires.

Historically these trends have perhaps been ongoing since Europeans set sail to create overseas colonies? (There may be parallels in other parts of the world where my knowledge is more limited.)

Perhaps the present has seen (and near future may see) a return to inter faith conflict on scale of earlier empires like Arab Empire and Frankish empire but more urban conflict of guerrilla warfare than battlefields of earlier Faith Wars?

We may even see a return of migrant wars like the Goths bursting into the Roman Empire this time through other migrants on other European frontiers, by sea, and by land?

We may see Social Wars, like those between "slaves" / underclasses and privileged classes of Roman republic?

I think that our perspective might be somewhat warped by the fact that as we're sitting here in the western world we're seeing primarily insurgency because of the west's (so far) unchallenged conventional military strength. Simply, our guys are usually fighting insurgents because the only people who can fight us without getting stomped are insurgents.

Yes, we are seeing a lot of low-level conflict, assymetric and "ambiguous" warfare at the moment, but TBH that's always been there. The 20th century might have seen some titanic state-on-state mechanised wars, but there were always the insurgencies, civil wars and bush tussles rumbling along in the background, too.

There are still conventional wars being fought. Just look at the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. There were some pretty hardcore combined-arms battles in that.

Not entirely sure your thoughts or ideas are clearly stated? But perhaps its the art of the incomplete comment to raise thinking or comment?
Perhaps a bit of both.There are still conventional wars being fought. Just look at the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. There were some pretty hardcore combined-arms battles in that.
But was it on a small scale?

My main point here was that in this century and the foreseeable future is it mainly a case of low-level warfare, penny packets of AFVs, small(ish) numbers of troops that would be best conducted using small numbers of figures and skirmish style rules or is there a place for big battle play?

I am sure we hope there is no WWIII with mass casualties numbering millions but my main interest is in large (tank) battles akin to Kursk that arose in WWII and Arab-Israeli Wars. Additionally, there is the alt-history Cold War WWIII with NATO v WP. Can one envisage other big battle situations or is it all Syria / Ukraine / Afghanistan fighting nibbling away at the enemy with steady skirmishing and sniping? What does it imply for gaming the twenty-first century in the twenty-first century?

If you are such a great writer make me want to logon and respond! [Adapted]

I think that it is a matter of perspective. The Second Congo War saw over 10 nations involved in some fairly massive battles. The Darfur War also saw large forces and the rise of the "technical" as a primary weapon system. The 2003 Iraq War (often incorrectly called the "second" Gulf War) saw armoured battles.

If you are looking for modern tank actions on the scale of Kursk then they will be few as most nations simply do not have the resources to fund and deploy modern MBTs. Replacing MBT losses is very expensive.

It is rather odd that "Hammurabi" would ask such a question as during his reign, he conquered the city-states of Elam, Larsa, Eshnunna, and Mari. He ousted Ishme-Dagan I, the king of Assyria, and forced his son Mut-Ashkur to pay tribute, thereby bringing almost all of Mesopotamia under Babylonian rule. And there are many more - Alexander the Great, Byzantines, Sassanids, Ottomans, Iran-Iraq War etc who fought "Gulf Wars".

The 1990 War is the "Kuwait War" and the follow on Op Desert Shield was "The Gulf War" to the British, "The Persian Gulf War" to the Americans and "The Kuwait Liberation War" to many others.
The 2003 War is the "Iraq War" to the British and "The Iraq Campaign" or "Iraq War" to the Americans

I realise that most non-military folk do get confused by these names and the press dubbed them First and Second Gulf Wars to save them thinking

It is rather odd that "Hammurabi" would ask such a question as during his reign,

I realise that most non-military folk do get confused by these names and the press dubbed them First and Second Gulf Wars to save them thinking

At if the Seven Years War is known as the first world war should we recast WWI and WWII?

Does Iraq War cover the period March 2003 to December 2011? I do not think this is what Gulf War II means to people. Gulf War II seems more helpful in defining the initial invasion phase. As you state, there are many wars and many titles used; general popularity would seem to have a value.

If you are such a great writer make me want to logon and respond! [Adapted]